Corte di giustizia UE/2017

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 4 May 2017 ( * ) (Failure of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to fulfil obligations — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 to 5 and 10 — Annex I, Sections A, B and D — Urban waste-water treatment — Collecting systems — Secondary or equivalent treatment — More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑502/15, ACTION for failure to fulfil obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU, brought on 22 September 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents, applicant, v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], represented by J. Kraehling, acting as Agent, and by S. Ford, Barrister, defendant, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] : M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its action, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to declare that: –        by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive; –        by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance in this respect with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 with regard to the Banchory, Stranraer and Ballycastle agglomerations as well as by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271; and –        by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, in accordance with the requirements of Section B of Annex I to that directive, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. Legal context 2 The eighth recital of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 states, ‘…it is necessary to monitor treatment plants, receiving waters and the disposal of sludge to ensure that the environment is protected from the adverse effects of the discharge of waste waters …’. 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3 of that directive provides: ‘1.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that all agglomerations are provided with collecting systems for urban waste water, –        at the latest by 31 December 2000 for those with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 15 000, and –        at the latest by 31 December 2005 for those with a p.e. of between 2 000 and 15 000. For urban waste water discharging into receiving waters which are considered “sensitive areas” as defined under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that collection systems are provided at the latest by 31 December 1998 for agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. Where the establishment of a collecting system is not justified either because it would produce no environmental benefit or because it would involve excessive cost, individual systems or other appropriate systems which achieve the same level of environmental protection shall be used. ... 2.      Collecting systems described in paragraph 1 shall satisfy the requirements of Annex I(A). … …’ 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 states: ‘1.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment as follows: –        at the latest by 31 December 2000 for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 15 000 p.e., –        at the latest by 31 December 2005 for all discharges from agglomerations of between 10 000 and 15 000 p.e., –        at the latest by 31 December 2005 for discharges to fresh-water and estuaries from agglomerations of between 2 000 and 10 000 p.e. ... 3.      Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants described in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I.B. … 4.      The load expressed in p.e. shall be calculated on the basis of the maximum average weekly load entering the treatment plant during the year, excluding unusual situations such as those due to heavy rain.’ 5 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of that directive provides: ‘1.      For the purposes of paragraph 2, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall by 31 December 1993 identify sensitive areas according to the criteria laid down in Annex II. 2.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that urban waste water entering collecting systems shall before discharge into sensitive areas be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4, by 31 December 1998 at the latest for all discharges from agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e. ... 3.      Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants described in paragraph 2 shall satisfy the relevant requirements of Annex I B. … ... 5.      Discharges from urban waste water treatment plants which are situated in the relevant catchment areas of sensitive areas and which contribute to the pollution of these areas shall be subject to paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. ... 6.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that the identification of sensitive areas is reviewed at intervals of no more than four years. 7.      [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that areas identified as sensitive following review under paragraph 6 shall within seven years meet the above requirements. ...’ 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 provides: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions. When designing the plants, seasonal variations of the load shall be taken into account.’ 7 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive lays down the monitoring requirements for the competent authorities or appropriate bodies in respect of discharges from urban waste water treatment plants, which must comply with the control procedures laid down in Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. 8 Annex I to that directive, entitled, ‘Requirements for urban waste water’, provides, in Section A, entitled ‘Collecting systems’: ‘Collecting systems shall take into account waste water treatment requirements. The design, construction and maintenance of collecting systems shall be undertaken in accordance with the best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs, notably regarding: –        volume and characteristics of urban waste water, –        prevention of leaks, –        limitation of pollution of receiving waters due to storm water overflows.’ 9 Section B of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, entitled ‘Discharge from urban waste water treatment plants to receiving waters’, sets the requirements that must be satisfied by discharges from urban waste water treatment plants into receiving waters. 10 Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 lays down the procedures for monitoring the waste water discharges. Point 3 of Section D provides that samples must be collected at regular intervals during the year, that is 12 samples during the first year in agglomerations with a p.e. from 2 000 to 9 999, and four samples in subsequent years, if it can be shown that the water during the first year complies with the provisions of that directive. If one sample of the four fails, 12 samples must be taken in the year that follows. For agglomerations with a p.e. from 10 000 to 49 999, 12 samples per year must be taken. Pre-litigation procedure Letters of formal notice 11 In the first place, following various citizens’ complaints, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sent a letter of formal notice, on 26 June 2009, to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning its obligation to ensure the collection and treatment of urban waste water in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the view that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to ensure that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in those two agglomerations were retained and conducted for treatment in compliance with the requirements of Articles 3 to 5 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied by a letter dated 28 September 2009 in which it acknowledged that the collecting systems serving those agglomerations were not performing as intended in relation to the number of spills occurring at certain overflows . [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated in that letter that, first, its authorities were conducting investigations to establish the cause of the underperformance of those systems and, secondly, they were progressing enforcement action against the sewerage undertaker under the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] domestic controls. 13 By letters of 21 May 2010, 4 February 2011, 16 February 2012 and 13 September 2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] set out the measures which it was taking to address that situation. 14 In a letter dated 12 September 2013, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provided updated figures for recorded spills at modelled assets in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations since 2010 and also described predicted spills based on a programme of works to secure compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by 2025. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] stated to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that full compliance with that directive was envisaged rather in 2020. 15 In the second place, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sent the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a letter of formal notice on 21 June 2013, by which it complained that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to provide secondary or equivalent treatment, as required under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, for the urban waste water discharges emanating from 26 agglomerations. In that letter, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also contended that the situation in Gibraltar did not comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that directive and requested clarification and information concerning the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of that directive with regard to a large number of agglomerations. 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replied by letter dated 18 October 2013. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] assessed that reply and considered that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] remained in breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 in respect of four of the agglomerations listed in the letter of formal notice of 21 June 2013. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also noted that there was no urban waste water treatment plant in Gibraltar and that Gibraltar did not, therefore, comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4. 17 In addition, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] explained that the reporting exercise on which the letter of formal notice was based contained wrong data regarding designation of the sensitive areas for 92 out of the 127 agglomerations indicated as non-compliant. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also stated that there had been errors in data regarding other agglomerations and that certain agglomerations were compliant with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. Having assessed the data provided, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] considered that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was still in breach of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of that directive in respect of 24 agglomerations. The reasoned opinion 18 By a letter dated 10 July 2014, received on 11 July 2014 by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sent a reasoned opinion under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU. According to that opinion (i) the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to comply with Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, as regards the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations, (ii) it had failed to apply correctly [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, that directive, as regards four agglomerations and Gibraltar and (iii) it failed to apply correctly [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I, to that directive, as regards 24 agglomerations. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] called on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to take the necessary measures to comply with the reasoned opinion within two months of receipt. 19 In its reply to the reasoned opinion, sent on 11 September 2014, and in an additional reply of 27 April 2015, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], first, acknowledged that the urban waste water treatment systems in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations had not performed as intended and stated that compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 would not be fully achieved until the end of 2020. Secondly, as regards the other sites, which, according to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], did not comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that directive, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] either set out the works undertaken in order to comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 or provided the date on which data relating to a full year of analyses would be available. Thirdly, for the 24 agglomerations designated as not complying with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] explained the nature of the works undertaken in order to comply and set out the date on which data relating to a full year of analyses would be available. In addition, it stated that, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, the boundary of the sensitive area was incorrectly drawn. 20 Since it was not satisfied with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] replies to that reasoned opinion, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] brought the present action. The request seeking the production of evidence after the closure of the written part of the procedure 21 After the closure of the written procedure on 7 March 2016, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] sought leave, by a letter dated 1 February 2017, to produce new documents pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 128(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. A time limit was prescribed within which the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] could comment on those documents, which it did on 21 February 2017. 22 By decision of 28 February 2017, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] admitted those new documents as evidence in the examination of the present action for failure to fulfil obligations. The action Preliminary observations 23 It must be recalled that although in proceedings brought under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 258 TFEU for failure to fulfil obligations it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to prove the allegation that an obligation has not been fulfilled, by placing before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] all the information required to enable it to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, without the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] being entitled to rely on any presumption, account should be taken of the fact that, where it is a question of checking that the national provisions intended to ensure effective implementation of a directive are applied correctly in practice, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which does not have investigative powers of its own in this area, is largely reliant on the information provided by complainants or by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned (judgment of 2 December 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Portugal , C‑526/09, not published, EU:C:2010:734, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). 24 It follows, inter alia, that, where the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the national provisions transposing a directive are not applied correctly in practice in the territory of the defendant [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is for the latter to challenge in substance and in detail the information produced and the inferences drawn (judgment of 2 December 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Portugal , C‑526/09, not published, EU:C:2010:734, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited). 25 In addition, it is for the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to determine whether or not the alleged breach of obligations exists, even if the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned does not deny the breach (see, in particular, judgment of 23 February 2006, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Germany , C‑43/05, not published, EU:C:2006:145, paragraph 11). 26 It should also be borne in mind that the question whether a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, judgment of 16 June 2005, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v France , C‑191/04, not published, EU:C:2005:393, paragraph 17). 27 In the present case, the reasoned opinion dated 10 July 2014, received by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 11 July 2014, set the latter a two-month period for complying with the obligations stemming from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. Consequently, the existence of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations must be assessed as at 11 September 2014. 28 The present action must be examined in the light of those considerations. The first complaint, alleging the failure to apply correctly Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, as regards the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations Arguments of the parties 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] complains that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of that directive. 30 According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the pre-litigation procedure disclosed that there were a high number of spills before treatment throughout the collecting systems, in waters designated for numerous interests, in particular, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2009/147/EC of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7). 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes, in particular, that the waters within the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which receive those spills, were designated on 11 October 1999 as ‘shellfish waters’ under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47) and that those waters remain protected areas under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2000/60/EC of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1), which repealed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 79/923. According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is clear that the spills from the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations contribute to the deterioration of the quality of those waters. 32 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the quality of the water and the E. coli levels within shellfish are monitored in those protected areas for the placing of the harvested shellfish on the market. It observes in that regard that the decline in cockle numbers and their contamination has had a negative economic impact on local shellfisheries and an impact on some of the bird species that depend on that species for food. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] mentions that elevated E. coli levels, leading to the closure of shellfisheries, appear to be linked to faecal contamination, which emanates from a combination of urban waste water and agricultural run-off linked to livestock. 33 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges, in respect of the works underway at those sites, that the recourse to the ‘sustainable drainage systems’ (‘SuDS’), advanced by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], is an innovative solution which seeks to remove surface water from collecting systems where possible. Nevertheless, it stresses that works to start implementing the solution proposed by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were undertaken too late, which is the reason why compliance is not due before the year 2020. 34 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argument that the development of SuDS was the only solution which would be in line with the ‘best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs … concept’, referred to in Section A of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, cannot be accepted in the present case. In any event, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] expresses the view that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to establish that the costs of achieving a greater reduction in spill frequencies and volumes would be disproportionate to the benefits for the environment. 35 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges that the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations do not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 and states that the current level of spills arises because of the volume of surface water, which is not effluent, being generated within the catchment and entering the system. 36 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] emphasises that it has embarked upon a programme of works in those two agglomerations which will make it possible to ensure that they comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by the year 2020, by significantly reducing spill frequencies and volumes from the collecting system prior to treatment. It states that that programme is focused on the retro-fitting of SuDS, complemented by optimisation of existing assets and the installation of some small storage tanks. 37 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that those works are consistent with the concept of ‘best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs’, referred to in Section A of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, and that it would not be consistent with that concept to go beyond the measures it plans to take, given the minimal environmental impact and excessive and progressively increasing costs entailed in so doing. In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states, in particular, that the predicted reduction in spill levels will be unlikely to achieve the total absence of faecal coliforms in shellfish flesh, since microbial inputs to the estuary arise from a number of sources, including intensive grazing. 38 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also disputes the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s argument that the cockle numbers in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] have drastically declined due in part to elevated E. coli levels, because studies have confirmed that cockle mortalities in that area were primarily to be linked to biological factors, including natural population dynamics. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that, nevertheless, the SuDS programme will contribute to a reduction in the average concentration of bacteria, including E. coli, in shellfish waters. 39 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] further contends that, first, the completion of the works involves particular challenges which have been encountered at those sites, some of which only became evident over time and, secondly, that the initial assessments of the performance of the SuDS indicate that the schemes are significantly outperforming expectations, and that asset performance continues to improve over time. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 40 First of all, it must be pointed out that it is common ground that the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations have a p.e. of more than 15 000. 41 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1) and (2) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex I to that directive, agglomerations must be provided with collecting systems for urban waste water, the design, construction and maintenance of which must be undertaken in accordance with the ‘best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs’, notably regarding volume and characteristics of urban waste water, prevention of leaks and limitation of pollution of receiving waters due to storm water overflows. 42 In its reply dated 11 September 2014 to the reasoned opinion, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the number of spills exceeds that which was anticipated when the collection systems were designed, with the result that those systems do not allow the waters either to be retained or to be conducted for treatment. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that, as at that date, an ambitious programme of works had been embarked upon in order to bring the situation of the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations into compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by the year 2020, which it confirms in its defence and in a letter sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2017, forwarded to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 43 It follows that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not deny that, as at the date on which the period specified in the reasoned opinion expired, the situation of those agglomerations did not comply with the obligations stemming from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex I to that directive. 44 Since the alleged infringement must be examined as at 11 September 2014, it must be found that the Gowerton and Llanelli collecting systems could not be considered installations complying with the concept of ‘best technical knowledge not entailing excessive costs’, within the meaning of Section A of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. The fact that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] embarked upon a large programme of works proves that there were technological solutions in order to overcome the problem of excessive spills before treatment, into waters having numerous interests, of waste waters from the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations, but that they had not been applied. In addition, the costs of those works cannot be regarded as excessive given that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has taken the decision to implement them (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 October 2012, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑301/10, EU:C:2012:633, paragraph 90). 45 It should be borne in mind that, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the agglomerations concerned must subject urban waste water entering their collecting systems to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment enabling those waters to be discharged while satisfying the requirements of Section B of Annex I to that directive and, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 10 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, they must be equipped with treatment plants designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions. 46 Since, on the expiry of the period specified in the reasoned opinion, the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations did not have collection systems allowing all the urban waste waters to be retained and conducted for treatment, the obligation to subject all those waters to secondary or equivalent treatment, as provided for in Articles 4 and 10 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, was not, therefore, a fortiori complied with (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 October 2007, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece , C‑440/06, not published, EU:C:2007:642, paragraph 25). 47 Furthermore, the arguments relied on by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in order to justify the failure to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 cannot succeed. 48 It must be noted that the EU legislature, conscious of the scope of the infrastructure work required for the application of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 and the costs of its full implementation, granted the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] a period of several years to carry out their obligations. In any event, according to the settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] cannot plead difficulties in its domestic legal order to justify a failure to observe obligations arising under EU law (judgment of 6 November 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Belgium , C‑395/13, EU:C:2014:2347, paragraph 51). 49 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be found that by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive. The second complaint, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligations stemming from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, as regards the Ballycastle and Gibraltar agglomerations Arguments of the parties 50 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by either not putting in place secondary or equivalent treatment or not providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate the compliance of the installations of the Ballycastle agglomeration with that directive, and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment. 51 In its application, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also submitted that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had failed to fulfil its obligations as regards the Banchory and Stranraer agglomerations. However, after obtaining from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] data for a calendar year of samples, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decided in its reply to withdraw the complaints against those two agglomerations in the context of the present action. 52 As regards the Ballycastle agglomeration, which should have been brought into compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 by 31 December 2005 at the latest, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes that, in its reply of 11 September 2014 to the reasoned opinion, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that the works in order to bring the agglomeration into compliance with that directive would be completed for September 2017. 53 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, since Gibraltar has no urban waste water treatment plant, while the deadline for compliance with the directive was 31 December 2000. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] emphasises that, in its reply of 11 September 2014 to the reasoned opinion, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contended that a treatment plant was expected to be in operation in Gibraltar by late 2016 at the latest. 54 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states, first, that Gibraltar does not discharge its urban waste waters into fresh water and estuaries, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits in its application, but into coastal waters. Secondly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] accepts that the Ballycastle and Gibraltar agglomerations will satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 only by late 2017. In a letter sent to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 31 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2017 forwarded to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that Gibraltar is scheduled to be compliant by the end of 2018. 55 As regards the Ballycastle agglomeration, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] explains that the purchase of land required for the upgrade of the Ballycastle treatment works has been problematic and confirms that measures have been adopted to ensure that that installation is compliant by late 2017. 56 As regards the situation of Gibraltar, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] emphasises that issues attributed to Gibraltar’s distinctive geographical features, exceptionally high population density, requiring the reclamation of land from the sea, and uncommon use of sea water for sanitary purposes, have delayed the start of the works. It maintains that the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 and those of Section B of Annex I to that directive will be fully complied with by late 2017. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adds that the Gibraltar competent authority will then be able, in accordance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive, to monitor discharges from its plant to verify compliance with the requirements of Section B of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, in accordance with the control procedures laid out in Section D of Annex I to that directive. 57 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observes, in respect of both the Ballycastle and Gibraltar agglomerations, that the fact that it had not collected monitoring data at regular intervals as required under Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 constitutes an infringement not of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that directive, but of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 which has not, however, been alleged by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in its application. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] points out that, during the written procedure before it, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] withdrew the forms of order sought in its application with regard to the Banchory and Stranraer agglomerations. It maintained, by contrast, its action as regards the Ballycastle and Gibraltar agglomerations, which have a p.e. of more than 10 000 and 15 000, respectively. 59 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 requires [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to ensure that, within the periods specified in that article, the agglomerations concerned make urban waste water, entering the collecting systems provided to agglomerations in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3 of that directive, subject to appropriate treatment and that such discharges satisfy the requirements of Section B of Annex I to the directive. Section D of Annex I to that directive sets out the minimum requirements to be met by the water monitoring method adopted by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 60 As regards the Ballycastle and Gibraltar agglomerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not deny that, at the end of the period specified in the reasoned opinion, the respective situations of those agglomerations did not comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, but it puts forward certain practical difficulties in order to justify the delay in the works necessary to remedy that failure to comply. 61 It is indeed apparent from the documents before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, on 11 September 2014, the date on which the period specified in the reasoned opinion expired, first, the Ballycastle treatment plant needed upgrading because secondary treatment had not been put in place there and, secondly, that there was no treatment plant in Gibraltar. It must, therefore, be found that the situation of those two agglomerations did not comply, as at that date, with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] argument that the failure to comply with its obligations is linked to difficulties in its domestic legal order cannot succeed for the same reasons as those set out in paragraph 48 above. 62 As regards the alleged infringement of Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states, in paragraphs 42 and 50 of its application, that the control procedures referred to in that provision are linked to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive, which sets out the monitoring requirements for discharges from urban waste water treatment plants. 63 It must be pointed out in that regard that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has held, in paragraph 40 of its judgment of 28 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Portugal (C‑398/14, EU:C:2016:61), that the obligation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 — according to which discharges of urban waste waters must be subject to treatment satisfying the requirements of Section B of Annex I to that directive — is secured over time through the monitoring of discharges from treatment plants, as provided for in the first indent of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15(1) of that directive, which makes express reference to Section D of Annex I thereto. Consequently, the failure to comply with Section D of Annex I to that directive may be examined only in conjunction with the allegation of the infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive. 64 The second complaint must, therefore, be rejected in so far as it relates to an infringement of the control procedures laid down in Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, since, in its application, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not claim that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] should declare that there has been an infringement of the monitoring obligation under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive. 65 In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be found that by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. The second complaint must be rejected as to the remainder. The third complaint, alleging a failure to fulfil the obligations stemming from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations Arguments of the parties 66 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Sections B and D of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that directive. 67 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that those eight agglomerations discharge their waters into areas designated as sensitive under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 and require the installation of tertiary treatment designed to remove any phosphorus from those urban waste waters. 68 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states, in particular, that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) and Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations discharge their waste waters into the river Wear, whereas the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations discharge their waste waters into the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Nene and Skerne (Tees), respectively. 69 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that although the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the works required to ensure compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 are planned or underway at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], until the works are completed and a full year’s data showing compliance with the requirements of that directive is provided, the situation in those agglomerations does not comply with that directive. 70 Similarly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that, even if the installation of tertiary treatment works serving the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations were complete, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends, the situation of those agglomerations may not be regarded as complying with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 in the absence of a full year’s data. 71 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits that the fact that a treatment plant exists and its operation has been established by means of a sampling listing, the specific values of which are in compliance with the requirements of Table 1 of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the treatment of urban waste water satisfies the requirements of that directive. Only the taking of a minimum of 12 samples would enable the proper functioning of treatment plants to be checked. It emphasises that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] validated that point of view in paragraph 48 of the judgment of 15 October 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece (C‑167/14, not published, EU:C:2015:684). 72 As regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, it is apparent from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] letters of 11 September 2014 and 27 April 2015 that the discharges into a sensitive area from those two agglomerations allegedly result from an error in mapping the boundary of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Wid and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], designated as such on 30 July 1998. While the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] understands that that infringement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 may be caused by a mapping error, it considers that, at the time of lodging its application, that error was not rectified and that the discharges into a sensitive area are ongoing whereas the deadline for compliance was 30 July 2005. 73 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that tertiary treatment had been installed in December 2015 in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations and that the first samples produced results which were below the maximum permitted level in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, thereby showing their compliance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of that directive. 74 As regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-Le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concedes that, on 11 September 2014, the situation in those agglomerations did not comply with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, but contends that that is no longer the case now. In that regard, it states that improvement works were completed at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) and at Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] by 31 December 2014 and at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] by 31 March 2015. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] adds, in its rejoinder, that samples taken show that the installations in those agglomerations have complied with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 in the field, in the case of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) agglomeration since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2015, the Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomeration since November 2014 and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomeration since May 2015. 75 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends, in addition, that the situation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomeration complied with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 as at 11 September 2014. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] submits, in its defence, the results of seven samples showing, in its view, compliance with the parameters laid down by that directive and, to that end, includes further samples in annex to its rejoinder. In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] wrongly conflates a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] obligation to ensure compliance with Articles 4 and 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 with the separate obligation to monitor discharges in order to verify compliance under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of, and Section D of Annex I to, that directive. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] also disputes the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s reading of the judgment of 15 October 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v Greece (C‑167/14, not published, EU:C:2015:684). 76 As regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relies on a mapping error in the boundary of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Wid and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and contends that those two agglomerations never discharged into sensitive waters, so that more stringent treatment was not required. In its rejoinder, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] states that that error was formally corrected with effect from 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2016. Findings of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 77 First of all, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] points out that it is common ground that the eight agglomerations concerned by the third complaint have a p.e. of more than 10 000. 78 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5(2) and (3) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, for agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e., apart from exceptions which are not applicable to the present case, first, urban waste water entering collecting systems must, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that directive and, secondly, those discharges must satisfy the relevant requirements of Section B of Annex I to that directive. 79 As regards Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, which in the context of its third complaint also the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] alleges has been infringed, it should be recalled, as is apparent from paragraph 62 above, that the requirements set out in that provision are linked to the monitoring obligation referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 of that directive. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not ask the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the context of its third complaint, to find that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 15 has been infringed, the third complaint must be rejected in so far as it refers to Section D of Annex I to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. 80 As regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] acknowledges that the situation of those agglomerations did not satisfy the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, when the period specified in the reasoned opinion expired. It is indeed apparent from the letter in reply to the reasoned opinion, dated 11 September 2014, that works were needed in those five agglomerations to install tertiary treatment in order to comply with the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. 81 By contrast, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] denies infringement as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations. 82 First, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends that improvement works at [OSCURATO:PERSONA] were completed on 31 March 2014, and that that agglomeration complied with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 on 11 September 2014. 83 As regards the bringing of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomeration’s installations into compliance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, it is apparent from the documents before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in particular from Annex B.10 to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] defence, that the oldest sample referred to in order to prove such compliance dates from 14 April 2015. It must, therefore, be found that it is not established that the treatment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] agglomeration’s waste water complied with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271 as at 11 September 2014. 84 Secondly, as regards the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has referred, since the pre-litigation stage, to a mapping error in the boundary of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Wid and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], into which the discharges from those agglomerations flow. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] contends, therefore, that those agglomerations should never have been subject to the obligations of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. 85 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not, however, deny that the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], Wid and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was designated a sensitive area by it on 30 July 1998, and that that designation was revised only on 29 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2016. In addition, the evidence submitted to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shows unequivocally that, on 11 September 2014, that territory formed part of the areas designated as sensitive by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that the urban waste waters of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations flowing into that sensitive area were not the subject of the treatment required under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271. The infringement, in so far as it relates to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, is, therefore, established. 86 In those circumstances, it must be found that by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive. The third complaint must be rejected as to the remainder. 87 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that: –        by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive; –        by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271; and –        by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive. 88 The action must be dismissed as to the remainder. Costs 89 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has applied for costs and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] failure to fulfil its obligations has in substance been established, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be ordered to pay the costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby: 1. Declares that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive; 2. Declares that, by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271; 3. Declares that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Chester-le-[OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 91/271, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has failed to fulfil its obligations under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive; 4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder; 5. Orders the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in open court in Luxembourg on 4 May 2017. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.